AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
None is appearing on behalf of the respondent since long. In the present appeal the challenge is to the order dated 04.06.2019 passed by DRT-I, Delhi in O.A. bearing no.647/2017 titled as National Cooperative Development Corporation & another v. Shri Shankar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited. The perusal of the impugned order reflects that an application bearing I.A. no.366/2018 was filed on behalf of the respondent regarding the territorial jurisdiction as well as issue of maintainability of the O.A. It was contended on behalf of the respondent that the documents were executed at Sholapur, Mumbai and the loan amount was also disbursed at Sholapur, Mumbai. It was further stated that the only document executed between the parties at New Delhi was the Tripartite Agreement dated 23.07.2010 where as per clause 5 it was agreed between the parties that the jurisdiction in respect of any dispute arising out of the agreement was to be of courts at District Sholapur, Mumbai. DRT, vide impugned order dated 04.06.2019 after referring to clause 5 of the Tripartite Agreement observed as under:-
Record reveals that the parties are entered into a Tripartite Agreement and whereby they agreed for a certain jurisdiction. The relevant clause (5) of the Tripartite Agreement dated 20.07.2010 is extracted below: "All disputes arising out of the agreement shall be subject to the JURISDICTION OF THE COMPETENT COURT exercising local jurisdiction in the concerned state relating to the subject matter of the agreement."
7.Admittedly the subject matter of the agreement was for the co-generation project and said project was running at Sadashivnagar, Tal-Malshiras, District Solapur of Maharashtra State. Further the parties have agreed for a jurisdiction of a competent court i.e. District Sholapur of Maharashtra State. Thus, as such the Tribunal at Delhi has no jurisdiction in the present matter.
10.In view of the above discussion it is well settled law that once parties agree upon a certain jurisdiction by way of agreement then they are bound by the agreement.
11.Consequently, this IA is allowed and OA is not maintainable before this Tribunal. Thus, same is hereby returned to applicant FI for filing before the appropriate forum.
Ms. Manisha Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellants during the course of arguments referred to O.A. filed before the DRT and drew the attention of this Tribunal towards that portion of the O.A. which related to the jurisdiction of the DRT. It is stated that the appellants are having their office at New Delhi and the loan account pertaining to the defendants are also maintained at New Delhi. Sanction letter dated 23.10.2010 was also issued by the appellant no.2 at New Delhi and the Tripartite Agreement dated 20.07.2010 was also executed at New Delhi. It is also stated that the disbursement of the loan was also made by the appellant no.2 at New Delhi and the demand notice was also issued from appellant's office at Delhi. In these circumstances, it is stated that part of cause of action was arisen at Delhi and as such the DRT at Delhi has the jurisdiction to entertain the present O.A.
It is reflecting from the impugned order that DRT-I, Delhi has observed that the O.A. is not maintainable before DRT-I, Delhi due to clause 5 of the Tripartite Agreement dated 20.07.2010 which by mutual agreement of the parties conferred jurisdiction on the courts situated in Sholapur, Mumbai. The jurisdiction is to be determined on the basis of legal proposition and cannot be conferred on a particular Court or Tribunal by the mutual agreement of the parties. The appellant has shown that sufficient cause of action has arisen in Delhi. After considering all facts, the impugned order dated 04.06.2019 is set aside. DRT-I, Delhi is directed to decide afresh the issue of territorial jurisdiction at Delhi and as such the maintainability of the O.A. bearing no. 647/2017 particularly after considering the facts detailed hereinabove and as mentioned in the O.A. pertaining to the jurisdiction part. The present appeal is accordingly allowed. The appellant is directed to appear before DRT on 27.07.2026. DRT is also directed to issue notice to defendant who are not appearing in the O.A. before DRT.